How much could Charlemagne conquer?

What is the largest the Frankish Empire could plausibly be at the time of Charlemagne's death?
 
What is the largest the Frankish Empire could plausibly be at the time of Charlemagne's death?

A bit more of Northern Spain and a few bits and pieces on the fringes mainly IMO. He was pretty good as things were - Saxony was a big bite, the Avars were a very lucky shot, and in Italy, he couldn't go further south than he did. The Spanish campaign could have come out a victory, but there is no way he could have taken all of it. England isn't going to work, Denmark at best an insecure vassal and the various Slavic tribes are going to be as intractable as the Saxons.
 
Well, greater success in northern Spain is possible, if Zaragoza surrenders, then Charlemagne's defeat by the Basques would be prevented. This could see interesting consequences with a Frankish/Carolingian state possible in Spain, and an earlier re-Chistianisation of Iberia.

Elsewhere, it is possible that he could come to the aid of his Avar vassals against the Bulgars. If he successfully shattered Bulgaian power here, this would completely change Balkan dynamics and would greatly aid the Byzantines later on. Immediatly, it could lead to a direct annexation of the upper Danube, and a reinforcement of Carolingian power in souther Germany.


This would all be aided if he avoided conflict with Eastern Rome.
 
I think he probably went about as far as he could. An interesting possibility is what if he didn't conquer as much as he did, and instead focused on really modernizing the land he held. I think the argument could be made that the hardships the West faced after Charlemagne's death came in large part because he expended so much strength in expanding the Empire's borders. There was a very good argument made by someone that Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony was what caused the Norse to go Viking.
 
I think he probably went about as far as he could. An interesting possibility is what if he didn't conquer as much as he did, and instead focused on really modernizing the land he held. I think the argument could be made that the hardships the West faced after Charlemagne's death came in large part because he expended so much strength in expanding the Empire's borders. There was a very good argument made by someone that Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony was what caused the Norse to go Viking.

I'm not sure that was a viable option. For all the civilisational veneer, Charlemagne was still basically a Frankish warlord writ large. His revenues were limited, his actual power depended on the allegiance of his vassals and there was no administrative structure worth mentioning in most of the Empire. The only way to secure the continued cooperation and support of his followers was to give them status, gifts and glory, and the only way to do that was to go to war and grab tribute, land and loot. A concerted modernisation effort would have required capital to be diverted from this, which might well bring down the kingdom.
 
Top